Optimizing seti ***** which one runs fastest ***** my test in linux

[Soulkeeper]

i decided to test all the different ways to runs seti on my linux system (P4m 1.8 256mb ddr laptop)
so i picked up the ars benchmark packet
droped to only the console killed all uneeded daemons and programs
well here are my results:

1) setiathome-3.03.i386-pc-linux cpu=18270.190000 nice priority: -19
2) setiathome-3.03.i686-pc-linux cpu=18122.920000 nice priority: -19
3) setiathome-3.03.i386-winnt-cmdline cpu=15471.100000 nice priority: wine -19 wineserver +5
4) setiathome-3.03.i386-winnt-cmdline cpu=14696.720000 nice priority: wine -19 wineserver -18
5) setiathome-3.03.i386-winnt-cmdline cpu=14679.260000 nice priority: wine -19 wineserver -5
6) setiathome-3.03.i386-winnt-cmdline cpu=14646.560000 nice priority: wine -19 wineserver 0

Welp the windows version running through wine is the fastest (havn't tryed running it under windows cause i don't have windows installed)
I woulda expected #4 to run faster maybe it was a fluke. I'll run it again to test it out
it would be interesting to see what kinda difference in times you would get between 1 and 2 on an athlon system maybe i'll try that later when i get my athlon system up and going

 

[Soulkeeper]

here are the times converted from seconds to make it easier to read

1) 5hr 04min 30sec
2) 5hr 02min 03sec
3) 4hr 17min 51sec
4) 4hr 04min 57sec
5) 4hr 04min 40sec
6) 4hr 04min 07sec

basically you can shave an hour off your time by using the windows version with wine
i think setting the priority on the wine process to -19 and the wineserver to -18 is the best
i think i had a cron job run updatedb during that one's crunchin time which would account for a few seconds slower time
i also ran them both at -19 priority but that throws the times up to like 6 hours since the wineserver (wine itself) and the wine instance (which happens to be seti) end up fighting for cpu cycles
running at the default nice level of 0 on both also results in a slower time since that is also the default for most other programs on a linux system and seti/wine would end up fighting them for cpu cycles.
welp if anyone wants me to test some more stuff while i am at this just let me know

--Soul_keeper

 

[steell]

I tried basically the same thing, and came to the same conclusion, but, running win CLI with wine, about once a day it just sits, and twiddles it's thumbs for about 4-5 hours before uploading the wu to my Q, and downloading a new one.

Anyone else notice the same thing, or have any ideas whats going on (and how to fix it) ?

Almost forgot XP1800+ running Suse 8.0 and KDE, running wineconsole in a term window.